Possession football…

[petehinton]

Just now, Super said:

Not recently he's been shocking

I mean he was MOTM 4 days ago, but sure

[TDarwall]

Dickie, Atkinson & Vyner are all comfortable on the ball. Zak has the ability to pass really well but does throw loose ones in too often as well.

All teams playing out from the back get caught. I couldn't believe Ipswich kept doing it against us. You can argue they won so it worked, but it worked because we didn't punish them when we robbed the ball deep in their half.

[IAmNick]

47 minutes ago, TDarwall said:

Dickie, Atkinson & Vyner are all comfortable on the ball. Zak has the ability to pass really well but does throw loose ones in too often as well.

All teams playing out from the back get caught. I couldn't believe Ipswich kept doing it against us. You can argue they won so it worked, but it worked because we didn't punish them when we robbed the ball deep in their half.

They are... Ish.

There's comfortable playing a pass to a teammate when you have time and space. But even then how many simple passes do we see bobbling at knee height for no reason, or on the wrong foot for the receivers stance, or requiring an extra touch to bring under control. Yes, they're a pass to a teammate but they're not a good pass or a crisp, incisive pass with intent.

Are they able to do it when being pressured or pressed, and move the ball quickly to each other and across the pitch? In those situations it's pretty hit and miss I think.

[TDarwall]

36 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

They are ish

But even really good players like Stones make mistakes.

I actually think our issue is movement (lack of) rather than passing ability. When there is talk of players being brave, to me that's helping a team mate who is in a tight spot by making yourself available for the pass. The problem is, it's a vicious circle, no one wants to give the ball away in a bad area, so the easy option is to not show for the pass. That then gives fewer options to the player with the ball.  Hopefully that is an area that the players can get more comfortable over time.

I really don't see on our budget we're going to get better ball playing centre backs than the ones we have.

[Super]

1 hour ago, petehinton said:

I mean he was MOTM 4 days ago, but sure

I'm on about his passing

[Maltshoveller]

6 hours ago, Cowshed said:

I would question where you are getting your stats from. 

The top four in the division play forms of possession football. Burnley last season? Another yes. 

Three of the top four played that kind of football last season also

Look where that got them!!

Look at Burnley this season

There was a stat on opta showing that over 70% of goals scored in the prem over last few seasons

came from teams losing the ball in their own 3rd

[Cowshed]

12 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

Three of the top four played that kind of football last season also

Look where that got them!!

Look at Burnley this season

There was a stat on opta showing that over 70% of goals scored in the prem over last few seasons

came from teams losing the ball in their own 3rd

Sorry but over 70% of goals in the EPL are not scored from turn overs of possession in the first third. 

[Maltshoveller]

Just now, Cowshed said:

Sorry but over 70% of goals in the EPL are not scored from turn overs of possession in the first third. 

Didnt say they were did i

[Cowshed]

Just now, Maltshoveller said:

Didnt say they were did i

I do not understand your post 

13 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

 

There was a stat on opta showing that over 70% of goals scored in the prem over last few seasons

came from teams losing the ball in their own 3rd

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

One key bit I would critique.

If we are seeking to play a more possession based game, is a back 3 better suited than a 4-3-3 or closer to a 4-3-3?

I'd suggest not. For us even less so.

Edited February 3 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One key bit I would critique.

If we are seeking to play a more possession based game, is a back 3 better suited than a 4-3-3 or closer to a 4-3-3?

I'd suggest not. For us even less so.

Formation doesn’t dictate possession or not

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Formation doesn’t dictate possession or not

I think some are more conducive these days.

Dictate no but back 3 seems more counter attacking, a traditional old style pure 4-4-2 could be worked around more readily etc.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think some are more conducive these days.

Dictate no but back 3 seems more counter attacking, a traditional old style pure 4-4-2 could be worked around more readily etc.

Respectfully disagree…

[sh1t_ref_again]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One key bit I would critique.

If we are seeking to play a more possession based game, is a back 3 better suited than a 4-3-3 or closer to a 4-3-3?

I'd suggest not. For us even less so.

I mentioned on the match day thread, we struggled under Nige until we swapped from a back 5 to a 4 and seems the same under LM, think someone said our last win was as a back 4?

Perhaps with players coming back from injury (skyes badly missed) and Twine will make the difference.

Trying to decide how we set up, when they are both back.

McCrorie Vyner Dickie Pring

Knight Williams TGH

Skyes Conway Twine

Maybe harsh on Tanner, but see McCrorie a bit more aggressive, always like Nailsmith as a bit if a quarterback role in midfield when he is fit. Atkinson over Dickie could be a close one.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Respectfully disagree…

Why do most top clubs gravitate towards it then? The base a 4-3-3 can give you IMO more security in all areas.

Whereas a 4-4-2 you can exploit the hole in central areas, a back 3 with wingbacks can be overloaded or penned in..a 3-4-3 then creates a potential mismatch in central areas, certainly as a pure attacking shape.

Barcelona I don't believe and it's an extreme example, the success they would have with traditional winners and 2 centre forwards.

Back to our level even, certainly a traditional 4-4-2 is hard to find.

Back 3 there are more who use it yeah.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

I mentioned on the match day thread, we struggled under Nige until we swapped from a back 5 to a 4 and seems the same under LM, think someone said our last win was as a back 4?

Perhaps with players coming back from injury (skyes badly missed) and Twine will make the difference.

Trying to decide how we set up, when they are both back.

McCrorie Vyner Dickie Pring

Knight Williams TGH

Skyes Conway Twine

Maybe harsh on Tanner, but see McCrorie a bit more aggressive, always like Nailsmith as a bit if a quarterback role in midfield when he is fit. Atkinson over Dickie could be a close one.

We didn’t struggle last season (22/23) because we played a back 3 per se, we struggled due to injuries to key players and the need to develop the likes of Vyner to cope without having a comfort blanket of an extra CB.

In 21/22 Nige invented / stumbled upon / developed WSM with a back 3.  You could argue that struggled to defend but it excited in attack.

I do agree that the recent change feels unnecessary / doesn’t utilise our squad in the best way (my opinion only) and I’d like LM to reflect on the reasons he gave for using it to Richard Hoskin and James Piercy on Thursday.  It was a nice answer at the time, but what happened on the pitch last night should make him question his logic (again imho).

[Cowshed]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Formation doesn’t dictate possession or not

But formation can be used to attempt to dictate possession by creating numerical superiority. 4-3-3 has an overload v 4-4-2 centrally, so does 4-2-3-1. 

3-4-2-1 creates a box midfield and numerical superiority versus a 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1. 

3-4-2-1 v 4-4-2 centrally mobs out the centre.

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

But formation can be used to attempt to dictate possession by creating numerical superiority. 4-3-3 has an overload v 4-4-2 centrally, so does 4-2-3-1. 

3-4-2-1 creates a box midfield and numerical superiority versus a 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1. 

3-4-2-1 v 4-4-2 centrally mobs out the centre.

But only if you do that by design….you don’t become that side just by playing a formation.

[Cowshed]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But only if you do that by design….you don’t become that side just by playing a formation.

The poster used the word conducive. Are some formations more conducive to keeping possession? I would answer yes.  

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

The poster used the word conducive. Are some formations more conducive to keeping possession? I would answer yes.  

Ok, so reflecting on the principles of our current head-coach and what you’ve seen of us, what formation do you think he should be playing?

[Dr Balls]

One thing that is clear is that we aren’t really playing a “central” back 3. What we have is very lopsided with Tanner playing like a right full back covered by McCrorie, while on the left, Pring is playing as a wing back with varying amounts of cover in front of him. Yet Pring and Dickie are more secure than Tanner and Vyner, plus far better going forward. Tanner gets a nose bleed as he approaches the half way line, while Zak’s passing is so bad, I would be tempted to check he’s not colour blind so often does he pass it to the opposition.

We would be better with a back 4, with McCrorie on the right and Pring on the left. Then 3 in midfield (James, TGH and Knight) with Twine playing as a number 10 behind Wells and Conway. That would be a much more robust and effective set-up (4-3–1-2). You never know, we might even score!

Edited February 3 by Dr Balls

[Markthehorn]

We all do it because Barca and Man C can so try to copy their style to an extent .

Even seen non league sides trying the passing out from the back stuff !

Great if it works and your defence looks confident and comfortable doing it but looks like a nightmare if not .

 

 

Edited February 3 by Markthehorn

[Baldyman]

Lost what little faith I had in Manning . We are destined to drop like a stone down the table . Manning had us playing his desired possession football ( not brilliantly) and clearly coached the side to play that way since day 1. I can only presume he did so with the understanding that a capable no.9 would be joining in January to be the missing piece of the jigsaw . We didn’t sign said no.9 and now Manning simply doesn’t know what to do . He knew we’d never score against Leeds with just TC up top so reverted to two up top last night even though we hadn’t played that way since Pearson left . That didn’t work either so went back to 1 up top with Knight not knowing whether he was supposed to support TC or drop back into midfield again . Now Manning has a huge issue as he clearly knows we’re not good enough to play with just a lone striker but it’s the only way they’ve been coached since he got here . Change the style and risk looking like a t@@t in the eyes of the players or stick with what doesn’t work and risk looking like a t@@t in the eyes of the players . He’s in a bit of a pickle !!! 

[JP Hampton]

On 02/02/2024 at 22:35, Silvio Dante said:

Bingo.

I keep saying this - evolution not revolution. Manning wants to play a totally different way to Pearson - and that’s fine. But a decent coach works with what they have and utilises pragmatism. Where we are now is we have a tactically intransigent coach who only knows one way of playing without the squad to play that way. In order to get that squad, we are talking several transfer windows and a lot of investment, with no guarantee it will work.

Getting rid of Pearson wasn’t the issue. Appointing a coach who will need years to reshape the squad (or a significant investment in the summer) was.

Yep this is it in a nutshell and something my OH and I were saying this morning. It’s all about appointing a coach who didn’t come in, watch what he had and go from there, he’s tried to force a one way only strategy and forcing square pegs in round holes. 

[Cowshed]

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Ok, so reflecting on the principles of our current head-coach and what you’ve seen of us, what formation do you think he should be playing?

The intent is possession, so I opt for shapes that I think would be more conducive to keeping possession and offering security - 4-2-3-1/4-3-3. In possession with an intent of playing full (full length of pitch), and with an eight, and two in the 4-2-3-1/4-3(2-1!) -3 leaving holding positions in relation to possession and patterns of play it would frequently look different, fluid! 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Cowshed said:

The intent is possession, so I opt for shapes that I think would be more conducive to keeping possession and offering security - 4-2-3-1/4-3-3. In possession with an intent of playing full (full length of pitch), and with an eight, and two in the 4-2-3-1/4-3(2-1!) -3 leaving holding positions in relation to possession and patterns of play it would frequently look different, fluid! 

Yet LM has gone for a back-3.

In some respects there hasn’t been too much change to the shape as when in a 4, because in that back-4 we were playing it lopsided to some extent.

But the difference I’ve noticed is that it’s now one dimensional.  The ball now goes along the back and out wide, the option for the CM (James) to come and receive seems to have disappeared.  We no longer play through the centre of the pitch.  Did you call it “U-shaped” or was that someone else I was talking to?  We’ve become easy to defend against.

[Cowshed]

On 04/02/2024 at 11:04, Davefevs said:

Yet LM has gone for a back-3.

In some respects there hasn’t been too much change to the shape as when in a 4, because in that back-4 we were playing it lopsided to some extent.

But the difference I’ve noticed is that it’s now one dimensional.  The ball now goes along the back and out wide, the option for the CM (James) to come and receive seems to have disappeared.  We no longer play through the centre of the pitch.  Did you call it “U-shaped” or was that someone else I was talking to?  We’ve become easy to defend against.

Thankfully you understood. what I was writing, I was thinking this looks like formation turbo nerd ..

Yes I use the term U passing. The CB's are a long way apart and the ball goes up back across and repeat.  No pass is pointless, but some have less intent, teams with average players, and City's are solid pros but average will see this passing that lacks penetration, and it is easy to defend against when the opponents lack players that are not good on the ball. Possession football doesn't require average as a keystone skill.

Stick an extra player in and the patterns change. Stick an extra player in and the opponents have more challenges to face. Go 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 there is an overload (frequently) to play into centrally to break lines. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

48 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Thankfully you understood. what I was writing, I was thinking this looks like formation turbo nerd ..

Yes I use the term U passing. The CB's are a long way apart and the ball goes up back across and repeat.  No pass is pointless, but some have less intent, teams with average players, and City's are solid pros but average will see this passing that lacks penetration, and it is easy to defend against when the opponents lack players that are not good on the ball. Possession football doesn't require average as a keystone skill.

Stick an extra player in and the patterns change. Stick an extra player in and the opponents have more challenges to face. Go 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 there is an overload (frequently) to play into centrally to break lines. 

Exactly,  overloading can be key. Not the be all and end all but important all the same and more conducive..As you say can break the lines a bit more easily.

I think 4-2-3-1 depending on the composition of the '3' or 4-3-3 xan be tactically superior to a 3-4-3/3-5-2/3-4-2-1. Clearly it isn't just as simple as pick a formation and go.

In respect of the average point.

Naismith- where would you rate him in our context..A bit above average in our passing context, and do you think he could assist ball circulation, breaking the lines in midfield were he consistently fit?

[Cowshed]

59 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Exactly,  overloading can be key. Not the be all and end all but important all the same and more conducive..As you say can break the lines a bit more easily.

I think 4-2-3-1 depending on the composition of the '3' or 4-3-3 xan be tactically superior to a 3-4-3/3-5-2/3-4-2-1. Clearly it isn't just as simple as pick a formation and go.

In respect of the average point.

Naismith- where would you rate him in our context..A bit above average in our passing context, and do you think he could assist ball circulation, breaking the lines in midfield were he consistently fit?

Naismith. The club should have multiple options in key positions. I can't think of a possession system that does not have players with above average passing abilities in key positions. 

Naismith would be an obvious choice to occupy a fundamental position in CM. The system needs comfortable on the ball and a distributor. Naismith in a 4-2-3-1 as part of the two as a pivot and CDM, or double pivot. 4-3-3 part of the central three as a pivot and CDM and an attacking midfielder. 

Edited February 5 by Cowshed

[Red Army 79]

Do we as fans actually want possession football? Last season we were a counting attacking side and Pearson said at the start of the season that we are moving from a counter attacking team to a more possession based.

From a personal note the best football I’ve seen and enjoyed watching City play was under Danny Wilson. At times it was possession based but it centred around getting the ball to Brian Tinnion and then his raking 60/ 70 yard balls straight to the feet of Scott Murray to run on to who would more often or not then either outpace / skin the fullback and either come inside and shoot or go down the line and put a cross in. It certainly got me off my seat instead of the sideways football not going anywhere I’m seeing today. 

Our current style reminds me of England when they lost to Iceland. Teams will just sit back and hit us on the counter as Leeds did on Friday. We are to predictable.